Sugar & Cancer ... again.

[pjoshea13]

After responding to a sugar thread & denying that sugar feeds cancer, I had to chuckle when, a few days later, someone repeated the myth. It's a bit pointless chopping off a hydra head when a hundred more appear on the Internet every day. One would need to be a Heracles to kill the monster.

I was wondering if, & how, top cancer hospitals deal with the topic. Sequence is as in the US News 2016 list of top cancer hospitals [5]:

[1] MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Unfortunately, the topic gets switched to sugar & obesity, with its increased risk of cancer. So the response is a bit wishy-washy. But:

"Does sugar “feed” cancer cells?

"Let’s look at the evidence to find out whether sugar causes cancer to grow and spread more quickly.

"It’s true that sugar feeds every cell in our body — even cancer cells. But, research shows that eating sugar doesn’t necessarily lead to cancer. It’s what sugar does to your waistline that can lead to cancer."

"So, should you avoid sugar? Our expert says no."

[2] Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

A better response, but it switches to obesity too:

"There’s a lot of confusing and misleading information on the Internet about the relationship between sugar and cancer. The notion that refined sugar causes cancer or that cutting sugar from the diet is a good way to treat cancer are two common — and incorrect — claims that turn up in a Google search."

"There is no question that obesity is associated with an increased risk of cancer, and that the abundance of carbohydrates in our diet is one of the major foundations on which the worldwide epidemic of obesity is built.

"The fundamental basis of obesity is eating more calories than you can burn over a period of time. Many people assume that if a person has a lot of body fat, it’s because they ate too much fat. That makes intuitive sense, but it isn’t the truth. Pretty much all you do with fats that you eat is burn them for energy.

"The fats you put into your fat cells are by and large made from carbohydrates. But it took us 25 years to figure that out. And as we learned recently, some groups tried to discourage or prevent that research."

Take that Ancel Keys!!!

[3] Mayo Clinic.

At last, a clear response that sticks to the topic:

"Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.

"This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer — typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy — including cancer cells — absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true."

[4] Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center.

A good response, but that first sentence isn't true for PCa:

"Cancer cells have a voracious appetite for glucose, a form of sugar, and consume it in much greater amounts than normal cells do. The knowledge of cancer cells’ zest for sugar has led some people to wonder if eating less sugar would restrain tumors’ growth.

"While cancer cells do rely on a large intake of glucose to fuel their growth and proliferation, reducing sugar in your diet won’t curb tumors. To supply the brain and other organs with vital nutrients, our bodies maintain a proper amount of sugar in the blood. This is accomplished by a complex network of regulatory hormones that keep blood sugar levels steady, regardless of what we eat.

"If we eat less sugar, our bodies compensate by making more sugar from other sources. As a result, the amount of sugar reaching a tumor remains constant whether your diet is high or low in sugar. Our bodies simply will not allow blood sugar to get low enough to “starve” a tumor."

...

Last word: Dr. Myers [6] (Watch the 2nd video first.)

-Patrick

[1] mdanderson.org/publications...

[2] mskcc.org/blog/no-sugar-no-...

[3] mayoclinic.org/diseases-con...

[4] blog.dana-farber.org/insigh...

[5] medscape.com/viewarticle/86...

[6] askdrmyers.wordpress.com/ta...

[Hidden]

The first sentence is misleading, says Robert Lustig. Not all calories are equal.

"The fundamental basis of obesity is eating more calories than you can burn over a period of time." Not so fast.

dietdoctor.com/the-toxic-ef...

The claim implies (falsely) that you burn what you want, and everything else is stored. Lustig claims it is as reasonable to say your body stores what it wants, and everything else is available to burn. If there is nothing available, you are too tired to exercise.

People can starve and be fat. The body stores it all and none is available to the body. That is the claim. (and I do believe it.)

Here he is, the man himself, Robert Lustig youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?t=1m00s(Not working as expected?)

[pjoshea13 in reply to Hidden]

Back in the days of Ancel Keys, John Yudkin was warning the British about sugar & heart disease. There was no room for two theories & Keys had more clout, so Yudkin's ideas were ignored & forgotten.

Keys' men still hold important positions in academia, but their days are numbered, I feel.

The following interview of Lustig mentions Yudkin:

theguardian.com/society/201...

-Patrick

[Neal-Snyder]

Hi Patrick,

Thanks very much for compiling this.

So there's no reason not to eat dark chocolate, at least for those who don't have an obesity problem, right? In fact, it's good for us, at least in moderation, I suppose. I wonder if it's a PCa fighter like coffee.

Neal

[pjoshea13 in reply to Neal-Snyder]

Neal,

Scharffen Berger does a 99% cacao "baking" chocolate that is quite palatable.

Ghirardelli has a 86% cacao product. It is semi-sweet.

Don't buy anything that isn't forthcoming about the cacao content.

I believe there is a net benefit, although the polyphenols are unlikely to be more than a few percent of total polyphenol intake (assuming a good diet.)

Have some with your coffee!

-Patrick

[Darryl Partner]

Thanks for your sober investigation

[Sisira]

What sugar means to the body and what sugar means to the PCa cells - everything is crystal clear now!

Thank you very much Patrick.

Sisira

[BigRich]

Patrick,

As we know, by diet, we want to avoid insulin spikes.

Rich

[Hidden]

What a sweet post, thanks Patrick.

[Doofusthefirst]

Very nice compilation Patrick. Now I won't feel so stupid for putting sugar in my green tea.

[Hidden]

Only those without cancer know the causes and treatments for it.

[Double_R]

Thanks

[LearnAll]

Restricting sugar will not work to slow progression of cancer cells BECAUSE if do not eat glucose..liver has a mechanism called GLUCONEOGENESIS which means coverting Fats and Protein into glucose and make sure to make sugar available to all normal cells which certainly need glucose to stay alive and function. Human Brain can not use fat or protein..it can only utilise glucose for functioning of nerve cells.

Cancer cells are like uninvited guests to dinner who will share the food with other guests.

However...the quickest and easiest way to gain fatty tissue is to eat a lot of sugar because liver can only store 500 grams of extra sugar in the form of Glycogen and any additional sugar has to be converted to fat and deposited as subcutaneous or belly fat.

Proteins take longer to convert into fat BUT sugar takes very little processing time to become fat.

BottomlineL One should eat sugar in moderation and fructose (fruit sugar) is better than refined glucose.

[tom67inMA in reply to LearnAll]

Mostly a nit pick, but fat can't be converted into glucose. It can be converted into ketones which can replace some uses of blood glucose, and the glycerine part of a triglyceride can be turned into glucose. But most of the glucose comes from protein. My understanding is most people who starve to death die when the body runs out of lean mass.

[LearnAll in reply to tom67inMA]

In human body there is hierarchy of utilisation of foods. When there is plenty of carbohydrates available..body prefers to use Carbs. When a person starts to fast, after 12 to 14 hours, the carbohydrates storages get depleted and the body switches to utilisation of fats...and ketones are produced as a result. If the person keeps fasting for days and weeks..a point comes when body can not use fats anymore as most usable fat storages are already depleted. With great hesitation and reluctance, at this point body resorts to start using muscles tissue (proteins) and that leads to total starvation mode .. ending in just skeleton covered with minimum fat and skin. (remember pictures of starving kids in Africa) So, the sequence of use is...Carbohydrates first...fats second and proteins third.